Father's Day and the Death of the Father

Sunday is Father's Day. Currently, only one-third of the boys in this country will grow up with their natural father for the important years of their childhood. Some will know their father only occasionally in custody arrangements or meet him only after they have reached their teen years. There is little attention paid to this very important situation for boys. The consequences are immeasurable and since the situation is so recent, we do not know the full impact on our culture of the trend. This much is clear, however: a woman cannot be a father to a boy. Being a father is not a role, like being a mother. Although the natural mother is usually (though not always) best, a male or female can mother a boy, since carrying out functions of feeding, cleaning and providing ongoing emotional warmth is not gender-specific. At the time of identification with one of the sexes during late early and middle childhood, however, the need of a boy for a mature male in his life is profound.

Boys who were raised without fathers fill our prisons. They are slower to launch, being more inclined to stay closer to the home, which is symbolized and embodied by the mother. The father represents the world beyond the boy's home. Just as important, a father transforms a boy into a son. A male and a female can create a boy, but only a father can create a son. This is a symbolic act. Luigi Zoja, an Italian Jungian psychologist, has written a full account of this in his wonderful book, THE FATHER. Last, consider this: In his relationship with his mother, a boy first learns he is lovable. A mother's love should be unconditional and infant boys do not respond to this with love, but rather with gratitude. Love for his mother follows in reaction to being loved. In his relationship with his father, however, a boy first initiates loving another human being. He does this as forming a foundation for identifying with a male. A boy identifies only with someone he first loves.

Most fathers respond to this with a love they have have not known since the relationship with their own father. It is important to realize that this first proactive loving is the model for a boy (then the man he becomes) in all his relationships of intimacy, with women, friends, and his own children. This is the crucial relationship in a boy's life. Father's Day celebrates this. Freud once wrote that the death of a man's (or boy's) father is the most important psychological event of his life. Here Freud was certainly spot on. But what of boys who have not known a father and there is none to lose? A world in which males grow up where this is a common scenario is one the like of which we have never known. The only comparable situations are times of war (1914-1918, 1939-1945) when so many men (many young fathers) died. The father as a cultural figure is dying. Think about the consequences of this. Then think of your father. I hope you were fortunate enough to have had one in your life ... as I'm happy to say I had.

Thank you, Dr. Groth, for your sensitive and sensible article on the role of fathers. My parents split up when I was three years old, and so I only saw my dad for a few weeks each year. I'm sure this caused a great deal of difficulty in my first decade of adulthood: I was poorly socialized, since my mother (now a world-famous nursing researcher on the verge of retirement) was focused entirely on her school and work.

This left me with seriously unbalanced models of relationships. I was disgusted by the acrimony between my parents and I swore I would never allow any marriage of my own to get that bad. But I was also deeply insecure, and I basically jumped at the first opportunity for marriage that presented itself.

This was a disaster; my first wife became progressively more controlling and abusive, culminating in three attacks requiring police intervention. All three times: "We remove men from domestic violence situations." This if course did nothing to moderate her abuse, quite the contrary; and the third attack, on August 10, 1999, was a homicidal attack.

I refused to return to that, which made her somehow even more vicious. She ended up alienating me from our daughters; I have not seen either of them since 2005. I also found out in 2009 that a girl born in 1993, whom she'd gaslighted me into believing was not my child (with another woman, conceived by accident), in fact was. This means she's inflicted an impressive 32 child-years of parental alienation on me, including a child that wasn't even hers.

The following decade was a trip through hell, which was mitigated only by me meeting my current wife. We have a son, and the two of them have made a total transformation in my life. I now work toward establishing a shelter for battered men.

My son means everything to me; it is so rewarding to spend time with him and to talk about life and to prepare him for the challenges of adulthood. I sincerely hope that, by surviving the catastrophic effects of my broken childhood, I can make the world a better place. It is an honour to be a dad.

"Being a father is not a role, like being a mother." Fathers choose whether they want to raise their children, but blame the mothers when there is a lack in doing so.

and no child can love their mother, only appreciate her. the father is the first "human being" the child loved because women aren't considered human beings.

I think this article is a bad attempt at making dads feel special by making the mother's of those children Irrelevant.

And I love the regressive thinking that the mother's shere is in the home and the man's is the outside word.. yes because all these single mothers are homemakers, not out in the world making their own money to take care of these children.

Not child just boys.And the point isn't that mothers aren't human beings it's that the father is a human being and also a male like the son - it's about being able to identify yourself through sharing something in common with another.And the article is about boys and their relation to fathers not about parents in general or mothers.

Mom is - at best - given the dredge-work of raising children, while men are Big Hero. The MAN who gets to conquer the world and return to the home with insight and riches abundant to enlighten his sons.

Heh, so a man can fulfill the "lowly" tasks of mothering usually shuffled onto women. But only a man, in power of being a *MAN* - can take on the role of "the father" (the son and holy ghost as well? - 'cause that's about the level you put being a MAN compared to being one of us lowly female-things)?

Oh well. The male drive to reduce women to *nothing*, continiues in full force even here, I see.

Hey, I think you forgot to mention that EVERY man's life is a HERO'S JOURNEY while women are just good for representing their lust in one of the "steps" or something like that.... and that women should really just stay out of the way after having acted as a vessel for a MAN to sire his SON (well except when diapers need to be changed, men CAN do this but why should they?).

"The father as a cultural icon is dying!"

If that means women in the future won't have to deal with such female-degrading, narcicist ego-tripping, male-self-worship as presented in this "article" - then GOOD BL**DY RIDDANCE!!!

The author is talking about sons and the father's role in raising them, specifically the father's role in a son's self-identity, if it was about daughters and mothers it'd still be pretty much the same.And unfortunately human psychology doesn't change because some people don't like it - but of course everyone has the right to learn it the hard way.

And about that last part, 80% of all rapists come from fatherless families as well as the majority of criminals in other crimes, so I guess instead of all the name calling you did women will have something worse - food for thought.

Of course it's about men. It's ALWAYS about men with you types. Women are reduced to pretty much nothing except whatever will benefit yourself the most.

And "submit to our way, or be raped in the street". Nice touch... really.

If men quite literally turn into rampaging criminal monsters if they are not given male privilege and their traditional place in the family - then the sollution for any sensible woman is not to appease this madness - it is to give birth to fewer men. Just keep enough around for reproduction.

THAT'S how you deal with such a monstrosity. Dear Sir. You do not submit to it and let it dictate how you live your life and how you organize your society. You take it down. Hard. You keep it weak and on a leash - if you must keep it around at all!

You are both staggeringly ignorant and boiling with misandric hatred. Utterly pathetic. You even quote-mine SOMETHING THAT HE DID NOT SAY.

The litmus test for sexism is this: if a statement becomes unacceptable by swapping male and female pronouns, the statement was unacceptable to begin with. For example:

If women quite literally turn into rampaging criminal monsters if they are not given female privilege and their traditional place in the family - then the sollution for any sensible man is not to appease this madness - it is to give birth to fewer women. Just keep enough around for reproduction.

"If women quite literally turn into rampaging criminal monsters if they are not given female privilege and their traditional place in the family - then the sollution for any sensible man is not to appease this madness - it is to give birth to fewer women. Just keep enough around for reproduction."

Utter. Failure.

You see, the thing is - males going monstrous if not given their privilege - is a claim made BY THE MAN I RESPONDED TO! I simply state that the correct respons is NOT appeasement. You do not let this potential for male savagery (again, HIS claim) dictate your life - you take care of the problem in a way that do not require you to give up your own freedoms. You do not bow down to "male supremacy" under the (indirect) threat of rape and murder.

It could also be argued that HIS statement about men is TRUE - but that your inversion, is NOT. Such behaviour could be said to be true of men - BUT NOT WOMEN. However, I prefer to hold individual men responsible for their own criminal actions... as long as men as a group do not try to use those criminal actions as a threat to try and bully women into retreating back to the life of 50s housewifes.

Not really scared, just prepared (mentally and in other ways) due to pragmatism.

Like I said in my other reply, I actually have checked out some history books. I also check out misogynist sites such as Manhood101, A Voice For Men, and so on.

I know your nature. I know any woman not accepting male sovereignity and authority is really seen as a man-hating-feminazi, a misandrist hellbent on destroying all of men's glorious creations, by the average MRM / MRA - crowd.

So, afraid, no. Not any more. I'm simply preparing myself for what seems inevetable - men succumbing to their anti-woman nature, once again (and I know I'm not the only one).

You read those and still cling to a debunked ideology?Oh well can't be helped I guess.Also men aren't the only ones in MRA roughly half are women and personally I've met more anti-feminist women than men, I suppose women aren't as mindless as you seem to think.Did you know that a majority of MRAs/MRA supporters are former feminists?Including myself - I guess it sucks for people like you, but I don't allow misandry anymore than misogyny.And yeah your not the only one, just one of the minority of men and women who promote misandry.

Uh. Yeah. Those sites "debunk" feminism in the same way "Mein Kampf" debunks judaism.

Really. They debunk nothing. They do nothing exept spew misogyni and agitate for male supremacy. They're actually pretty much standing evidence that it's us "radical feminists" who got it right.

Where do you think I GOT my dismal view of men? I was pretty mellow until I started checking out the MRA-stuff.

And, though it is probably impossible for you to believe - I'm in no way actually a misandrist. I do not hate men per se. I think men should have the same rights as women. But I will not accept men to take away women's right, to reclaim their "male privileges", or to bully women "back to the kitchen" under the threat of rape.

And it is these former things MRAs try to do, having seen their websites I can come to no other conclusion. And I honestly wonder how you do NOT see this?

Typical fallacy with feminists is that they believe there is or was a patriarchy and that women were oppressed and last there is/was such a thing called male privilege - when you get out of your traditionalist lens of seeing things you'll see how inaccurate that is.And for the record there are plenty of women who agree with me so don't hang on to the fact that I'm a guy.

But of course - you'll claim this wasn't REALLY oppression... just
"the way it had to be" - or in place to "protect" women (f. that, the only thing women EVER really needed protection from was the rule of men) - or whatever.

Actually unlike you I live in reality.Those are selective examples from history instead of the general rule - it can easily change on the era and place.And no I don't claim,

"But of course - you'll claim this wasn't REALLY oppression... just
"the way it had to be" - or in place to "protect" women (f. that, the only thing women EVER really needed protection from was the rule of men) - or whatever."

I'd say there were gender roles and gender bias but no oppression.On the other hand I might as well ask why were men required to value a woman's life over his own(especially the case with marriage) and why were men required to go to war instead of women?And why were women provided with safety and other basic needs even though they did little to nothing to the benefit of society?And the traditional marriage you're talking about required the man to work,provide,protect and take care of his wife and children while the woman was only required to take care the husband and children - when all the responsibility was pushed on to the man so was all the power and it's unfair for men.It goes both ways.

And about voting it wasn't men that kept women from having the right to vote - when men tried to give women the right to vote women refused it on basis of not wanting the same responsibilities as men.Look up history.

Uh. No. These are examples of the general trend through most of history - not the exceptions. Might want to check out som actual history - not just go with whatever "interpretations" of history they peddle in your MRA-circles.

To put it simply; pushing an entire gender into a disempowering and limiting role while claiming a role that brings your own gender most of the freedom and power - IS oppression. You're just mincing words here. In almost any given time in history, a man would have had considerable more power and privilege than women of the "same" social class.

So yeah. Poor men. They got the shaft in the same way white slave owners got the shaft. All that horrible *responsibility* that followed their power - tsk. tsk. Slaves should be thanking them for their noble sacrifice, really...

But then again, according to your own logic. Black slaves weren't really oppressed: There were just some "racial roles" and "racial bias" at work in those days. Lol.

And as for yout claims regarding the vote. Just... no... dude. Try again. Some women might have opposed it, much as people serving long sentences might fear the idea of freedom... but that's it.

I would rather say that the fact that women didn't get the same political power by default, as men did, is another proof of the oppression of women and their general status as "second class" citizens.

And finally. Yes, women had next to little influence on society. Except for being chained by law into giving a man legitimate heirs, and doing whatever dredge-work in the house men found beneath themselves - women were mostly reduced to nothing. Thus being unable to "benefit" society in any real way. This was enforced by men. Because that is how men wanted it. They wanted a society where women had no say and no clout in any area.

Seriously, how can you be aware of this and still claim women weren't oppressed? Look around you in any modern, feminist society - does this kind of "sheltered" (i.e. caged) existanse really seem to be a kind of life women would naturally want?

First you know nothing about me to tell me about 'my types' I'm not a traditionalist I think the traditional gynocentric society give way too many benefits to women, but this isn't really the place to talk about it and the article says nothing about traditional gender roles.

I think it's incredible you could 'quote' something I didn't say(sorry but I really can't do anything about your delusions) but then again I don't really put much value on an opinion coming from someone who endorses genocide.And considering how many MRMs I have seen lately I think life is gonna be exactly like how you described in the last part for misandrists in the future.Btw why did you assume it was men when I mentioned rapist?According to last year's statistics 40% of rapists were women - also it's not a threat it's a fact, and rapists and other criminals come from both genders(Out of curiosity, would your 'sensible' solution to that be not giving birth at all?).

Of course you think "traditional" society gave too much power to women. You're apparantly an MRA sympathizer, at the least. And any society where women aren't made UTTERLY irrelevant gives women too much power as far as the average MRA-crowd is concerned.

And as for "quoting"... that was pretty much what you implied. And if you genuinely think men will be turning into rampaging rapist monsters if they can't get their male family privileges back... then, well, my solution IS the viable one - not submitting to such barbaric male madness.

(As for women, we'll deal with them as regular criminals - it's not WOMEN trying to use their crimes to bully others into giving them privilege).

And Men's Groups wanting to take away women's rights. Espescially the rights of us horrible, horrible man haters. Yeah, I know. Not really a point in your favor, though.

If you think I'm shocked by this horrific reveal - I'm not. Because I've opened a history book or two in my life - and I know trying to reduce women, espescially "misandrist" women who refuse to accept male misogynistic supremacy - into mindless slaves - have been the STANDARD MALE BEHAVIOR THROUGH MOST OF HUMAN HISTORY. The MRA-groups anti-free-women-agenda is just a return to form. Seen it coming, getting ready.

Seriously, it's another "evidence" that women as a whole should consider my solution. It's in men's NATURE to oppress and control women - might as well try and get them first, when we finally have an opening.

BTW: Genocide? In no way. Not even abortions are needed. Quite easy to sort out excess Y chromosomes before egg-fertilization. Reducing male numbers will result in LESS of a murder rate - if statistics are to be believed.

Both of you appear to be confused and lost. Fathers Day is not about mothers, not about women, and most definitely not about what feminists want.

As Freud said, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Just the same, Fathers Day is just about fathers, and the truth is the truth.

Is there anything at all that you are not envious of?

In functioning families, fathers and mothers respect, love and complement one another in achieving the best possible results in raising their children. They put envy aside and do not compete with one another.

Yeah this was written for fathers day, sure. They day we're expected to *celebrate* the traditional "head-of-family" overlord (I know his power is thankfully mostly broken, but it still feels like expecting blacks to celebrate White Southern Gentlemen's Day).

But I digress.

Yes. Fathers day is about fathers, fair 'nough. But the article goes far, FAR outside this. It speaks about the supremacy of the Male and the Father over us lowly bottom-washing females and mothers - in general.

So, why the surprise that the article is commentet upon outside the context of father's day? When the article itself go FAR outside that context.

And your idea seems to be that women are *envious* of men. Well, there's certainly things to envy - I'd trade woman's general place in history with man's in a heartbeat. But here? No. Any "supreme and exalted" position a man hold in the family is really smoke and mirrors - a lie men kept up by forcing women to facilitate it. And that is no longer happening.

Traditionally "complementing" just means the woman doing whatever the man wants her to do so he can focus on the things that make him a *MAAAYYYN* - and to HECK with that.

If I bother keeping "dear daddy" around at all, he'll be changing as many diapers as me - period. I will not do the groundwork alone while he puts on the Big Hero Daddy act (optionally the Wise Grand Patriarch act - there are many strands of this BS).

So yeah, happy father's day.
Here's the diaper, there's the mop. I got work in fifteen.
Will teach little Johnny to ride his bike when I'm home.
See ya!

Well, my mom was terminally ill so my father did all of the above and the job(basically everything) and he also took care of mom(should have thrown her out, right?You know, since she didn't do anything) - all without any complaining or whining(something I hear a lot from single mothers, wonder why single fathers don't do the same?) about how hard it is to take care of children or a family for that matter.The traditional head of the family thing is unfair to fathers or men in general I'd be glad if it changes since it'll give fathers more freedom and a better lifestyle.

Get this into your thick skull, you neither speak for nor represent all women. You should pay more attention to detail and read my original comment more closely. It was addressed to you and your fanatical sister, not to all women. You two are the only envious women (if women is what you are) around here.

Oh trust me, we man-haters are going nowhere. Cute statistics by the way - though I prefer the ones that show women's increasing relative economic power, the ones that show the growth of women's rights internationally, etc. Heck - even the increase in single mothers represent something positive; more women having children without making themselves dependent on a man.

These numbers seem somewhat more relevant.

And, obviously, my words are my own. But I'm pretty sure I speak *more* for women than you do :D

Bron2BFree, you are not only envious but you relish being greedy as well. It sure is a good thing that only few women are like that, or we would all be living in Hell on Earth.

Nevertheless, it is even better that soon it will all be over. As much as you hate the truth and statistics that reflect it, here is another aspect of the truth that you refuse to recognize even though it stares you in the face. Not only is public support of feminism flagging, as shown by Google Trends, but, far more importantly, the feminists are running out of steam, at a rapid pace, as reflected by another trend, as per Google Ngram:

You may think that in this discussion thread you are behaving like an elephant in a China store, but in view of the trend reflected in that Ngram, your antics here look a lot more like one of the last convulsions of feminism. Your antics are 20 years too late.

The ideology that produced so many fanatics like you has had the bun. It is rotting from within, and that is because it is running out of apostles, quite simply because the whole idea of feminism is an evolutionary dead-end.

Soon everything will be back to normal. Reason and the sons of fathers will prevail, and the daughters of feminism will just be a memory of a nightmare that left in everyone's mouth a bad taste that will eventually cease.

Well, a man can dream... of privilege and the domination of "the females". But women will keep dreaming of freedom :D

Seriously. Women - regardless of whether they CALL themselves feminist or not - will not go back to submitting to men's rule. Which unfortunately HAS been the "normal" throughout history.

I predict MORE career women, women providers, and women refusing to accept traditional roles in 20 years or so. That IS the trend, not women submitting to patriarchy and going back to being obedient little housekeepers. Modern women are feminists to the bone, in all but name. They take everything but the label, which is fine by me - it's not the label that matters :D

Prediction: We might actually see an END of women bothering to put it on themselves to facilitate the artificial and imposed role of "father" for men. And men won't even have feminism to blame, because the name (and only the name) will be gone.

Again. Less use of the *word* feminism is not implying it's going away. It's implying feminism becoming the new default. The "way it is" - which requires no ideological label.

Bron2BFree, you are not only envious but you relish being greedy as well. It sure is a good thing that only few women are like that, or we would all be living in Hell on Earth.

Nevertheless, it is even better that soon it will all be over. As much as you hate the truth and statistics that reflect it, here is another aspect of the truth that you refuse to recognize even though it stares you in the face. Not only is public support of feminism flagging, as shown by Google Trends, but, far more importantly, the feminists are running out of steam, at a rapid pace, as reflected by another trend, as per Google Ngram:

You may think that in this discussion thread you are behaving like an elephant in a China store, but in view of the trend reflected in that Ngram, your antics here look a lot more like one of the last convulsions of feminism. Your antics are 20 years too late.

The ideology that produced so many fanatics like you has had the bun. It is rotting from within, and that is because it is running out of apostles, quite simply because the whole idea of feminism is an evolutionary dead-end.

Soon everything will be back to normal. Reason and the sons of fathers will prevail, and the daughters of feminism will just be a memory of a nightmare that left in everyone's mouth a bad taste that will eventually cease.

"Fathers day is about fathers, fair 'nough. But the article goes far, FAR outside this." Really, more than articles about Mothers Day do?

"It speaks about the supremacy of the Male and the Father over us lowly bottom-washing females and mothers - in general." Do you care to offer examples, or is plain, old rationalizing good enough for you?

You maintain that you speak for women. I won't deny that, but the majority of women is not like you. At best you speak for a small minority of women, and I don't see any of them coming to your aid. I suspect that you are a bit too extreme even for the small, man-hating, extremist faction of women.

This is why:
1)I'm keeping my name after marraige.
2)the baby that grew inside me and I had to push out of me then let feed off me for months on end will also have my last name. (and if the father wants to have the same last name as his child he is more than welcome to change his name to mine.)
3)and if I were to get a divorce, the father is more than welcome to take custody of the children. He can worry about the schooling and medical appointments and social activities and friends names and names of parents of said friends. work to make the money to survive and for the children to survive, then spend the rest of his non working time taking care of the children.

Men will be up in arms over those 3 choices (without ever realizing that this is what most men currently do in regards to marraige and childrearing.)

Maybe that's why there are so many men opting out of marriage altogether and the push to reform alimony,divorce and child support laws on the other side.Btw there is such a thing called artificial womb technology so no need to go through with nine months of pregnancy if you don't want to.

Simple fact men don't go about it that way.Maybe some men you met have, that doesn't mean everyone does.

Btw, it's not just men, some women don't get married too.Personally I think marriage is an outdated tradition why should a man be stuck with a single woman for his life(or a single man if you're a woman) and since the planet is overpopulated as it is there's no pressing need for humans to procreate.On the other hand being single lets you do whatever you want without any responsibilities, at least those are my reasons to not get married.Others have different reasons to avoid marriage though.

A)True, but if there's something wrong with taking a man's name it's just as wrong to take a woman's name.

B)You're saying that's how most men go about it?When there are so many fathers who are denied custody by law?This isn't how most men go about it.

And also many 'independent' women who say they don't have an obligation to do as men say make the mistake of thinking men have an obligation to do as they say.In raising children if you make all the decisions then you take all the responsibility too.I wouldn't blame a man who left a family he has no say in - actually I think it's the right thing to do.

Not from a feminist point of view, not anti-men, not about the philosophical debate: I'm a mother, and I took personal offense to the author suggesting my importance is feeding and doing other basic chores. I hope he apologizes to his mother for suggesting this. The article would have been just as powerful without the insult to the one person who puts their heart and soul into parenting.

WOW. You say that fathers don’t put their hearts and souls into their children, and still have the temerity to call this article offensive? Thank God I am not your husband, he must live in a dark, sorry world with someone as hateful as you around all the time.